Main Date: 26 Jun 2008 09:28:25 From: Sanny Subject: Zebediah made the King dance from e8-a1. An interesting game by Zebediah against Advance Level.. Black King had to run out from e8 to a1. Zebediah trapped Black's Rook and win easily. Most interesting was how Black King ran from e8 to a1 But atlast has to surrender. Game Played between zebediah and advance at GetClub.com ---------------------- zebediah: (White) advance: (Black) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM21199&game=Chess ---------------------- White -- Black (zebediah) -- (advance) 1. d2-d4{16} d7-d5{0} 2. c2-c4{4} e7-e6{0} 3. Nb1-c3{4} Ng8-f6{0} 4. Ng1-f3{4} c7-c6{0} 5. e2-e3{4} d5-c4{1812} 6. Bf1-c4{17078} b7-b5{0} 7. Bc4-d3{8} Bf8-d6{1878} 8. e3-e4{712} b5-b4{1330} 9. e4-e5{834} b4-c3{1314} 10. b2-c3{58} Bc8-a6{3050} 11. e5-f6{976} g7-f6{2310} 12. Bd3-a6{310} Nb8-a6{3116} 13. Ke1-g1{3802} Na6-c7{1544} 14. Bc1-h6{810} Rh8-g8{1732} 15. Rf1-e1{866} Rg8-g6{1702} 16. Bh6-d2{396} Qd8-d7{1578} 17. Ra1-b1{192} c6-c5{2608} 18. Nf3-h4{790} Rg6-g8{1286} 19. Qd1-f3{24} Nc7-d5{1416} 20. c3-c4{142} Nd5-c7{1344} 21. Bd2-a5{864} Ra8-d8{2940} 22. Nh4-f5{11778} c5-d4{2592} 23. Nf5-d6{1240} Qd7-d6{1620} 24. Rb1-b7{298} Rd8-c8{1780} 25. Ba5-c7{118} Rc8-c7{2488} 26. Rb7-b8{7848} Ke8-e7{0} 27. Rb8-g8{4} Qd6-b4{1746} 28. Re1-e6{198} f7-e6{2934} 29. Rg8-g7{186} Ke7-d8{2282} 30. Qf3-a8{140} Rc7-c8{2056} 31. Rg7-g8{212} Kd8-e7{2946} 32. Qa8-a7{66} Ke7-d6{2432} 33. Qa7-d4{400} Kd6-c7{1936} 34. Rg8-g7{12} Kc7-c6{1310} 35. Qd4-d7{338} Kc6-c5{1916} 36. Qd7-c8{220} Kc5-d4{1990} 37. Qc8-d7{2912} Kd4-c3{1536} 38. Qd7-d1{288} Kc3-b2{1654} 39. Rg7-d7{66} Qb4-c4{1590} 40. Qd1-d2{1114} Kb2-a1{148} ---------------------- zebediah: (White) advance: (Black) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM21199&game=Chess What do you think Advance Level was wrong that it lost its Rook? Can you spot any mistake in this interesting game? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 03 Jul 2008 01:54:02 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > Well, I'm glad your program is already playing good Chess. > > But learning a bit about how Chess programs work, such as learning > about A-B pruning, would definitely help you improve your program > still further, and it is not nearly as hard to do that as it would be > to, say, add 400 points to your Elo. After AB was used not much improvement was found. Only 30-40% improvement found. Any other thing that can improve the program. As Playing 30% faster keeps the game fast. So even if it has slow improvement its worth it. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 03 Jul 2008 21:48:33 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:11bedece-b0c2-4ab2-bb4b-1ca725ff0846@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> Well, I'm glad your program is already playing good Chess. >> >> But learning a bit about how Chess programs work, such as learning >> about A-B pruning, would definitely help you improve your program >> still further, and it is not nearly as hard to do that as it would be >> to, say, add 400 points to your Elo. > > After AB was used not much improvement was found. Only 30-40% > improvement found. Any other thing that can improve the program. That is a very interesting statement. AlphaBeta (A-B) pruning should improve your search time by about a factor of square root. In other words, if it takes 16 minutes without it, then it will now take only 4 minutes. If it takes 256 minutes, then it now only takes 16 minutes. And so on. If you are getting only 30$-40% improvement, then either you are doing it wrong, or you might be using selective search. Selective search does benefit from AB (and the other pruning methods) but not as much as a plain brute force full width search. > > As Playing 30% faster keeps the game fast. So even if it has slow > improvement its worth it. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 01 Jul 2008 18:01:32 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 1, 11:27 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Correct, Chess is very vast. You cannot learn all techniques. else > every one will be a grand master. Well, I'm glad your program is already playing good Chess. But learning a bit about how Chess programs work, such as learning about A-B pruning, would definitely help you improve your program still further, and it is not nearly as hard to do that as it would be to, say, add 400 points to your Elo. John Savard   Date: 01 Jul 2008 17:18:10 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 1, 5:15 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <fri...@appleisp.netNO > wrote: > > I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or > > programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained > > useful knowledge in either. > That hit it right on the nose, but won't stop him, slow him down, or > persuade him to learn anything. With the amazing speed of todays computers, perhaps a decent chess program can be made without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other chess-centric programming techniques. We know that ignoring tactics leads to mediocrity, but suppose someone were to focus on getting the tactics right-- what then? In one of my recent games, I landed a very shallow tactical blow-- but suppose the speed and power of modern computers were harnessed and aimed squarely at this crucial aspect? Who knows what would happen. I sometimes feel that my computer's microprocessor is just spinning its wheels with GetClub; that I'm out-running it only because it is churning its own tires into molten rubber while staying in the same spot and burning lots of gas. > Sanny and Ray Gordon ought to collaborate on a project. Flash is the guy who keeps scolding Sanny for supposedly spamming rgc, all the while appending dozens of lines of real spam to each of his own postings; this guy is about as smart as a box of rocks. He reminds me of nearly-IMnes in that respect. But what Sanny really needs is a real, live wolf; that way, when he screams "wolf!" and people ask him "where?", he can just point to his collaborator and say "right there". Even a Siberian Husky would do. -- help bot     Date: 02 Jul 2008 23:29:22 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:18:10 -0700 (PDT), help bot <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 1, 5:15 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <fri...@appleisp.netNO> wrote: > >> > I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or >> > programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained >> > useful knowledge in either. > >> That hit it right on the nose, but won't stop him, slow him down, or >> persuade him to learn anything. > > With the amazing speed of todays computers, >perhaps a decent chess program can be made >without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other >chess-centric programming techniques. We >know that ignoring tactics leads to mediocrity, >but suppose someone were to focus on getting >the tactics right-- what then? In one of my >recent games, I landed a very shallow tactical >blow-- but suppose the speed and power of >modern computers were harnessed and aimed >squarely at this crucial aspect? Who knows >what would happen. I sometimes feel that my >computer's microprocessor is just spinning its >wheels with GetClub; that I'm out-running it >only because it is churning its own tires into >molten rubber while staying in the same spot >and burning lots of gas. When you write a chess program, I think it's a pretty fair statement that you have to be knowledgeable in both fields, or at least know someone. Ignoring tactics also leads to worse than mediocrity in programming. Hate to burst your bubble, but pruners and hash tables are hardly chess-centric programming techniques. The A-B table is straight out of game theory (which comes into more mundane things now such as search engines), and the hash table is pretty much used whenever you use any database (Apache uses them. Java has them as a class for pete's sake). Why are they pretty standard in the chess game toolkit? Because chess has a massive amount of possible moves. Get 5-6 ply and your move set is at least in the billions. Every pieces adds at least an order of magnitude. A queen for example can have up to 28 different places it can move (a knight or king 8, a bishop/rook 14, and even a pawn has 4 possible moves). If you notice, every respectable chess program scores the position. Why? Because that score is used for A-B pruning. Basically, you don't trace down the less-than-favorible lines (basically, this determines the breadth. Depth is difficulty). Sure, you can put your queen next to your opponents' pawn to be taken in the next half ply, but if you have better moves, do you really want to analyze the permutations of that? In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess program can be made without sorting, I would have to say it's possible a roomful of monkeys can write Shakepeare. Possible, but EXTREMELY unlikely. The fact that such things didn't occur to Sanny very much implies that his code is written as a journey. A journey that burns bridges. It's one thing to write a chess program, and not know one of the domains. It's either arrogant or ignorant to not know either. > > >> Sanny and Ray Gordon ought to collaborate on a project. > > Flash is the guy who keeps scolding >Sanny for supposedly spamming rgc, all the >while appending dozens of lines of real spam >to each of his own postings; this guy is >about as smart as a box of rocks. He >reminds me of nearly-IMnes in that respect. > > But what Sanny really needs is a real, live >wolf; that way, when he screams "wolf!" and >people ask him "where?", he can just point >to his collaborator and say "right there". >Even a Siberian Husky would do. > I'm not so sure Sanny would pass a Turing test at this point... If nothing else, he's optimistic. His website about management and stuff gave me a chuckle. Kind of reminds me of my 20's, where a bunch of us would sit around, and talk of starting up a company. But none of us really had an idea on what we wanted to do. That's where a plan comes in. > > -- help bot > > > >   Date: 01 Jul 2008 10:27:18 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > Well, that answered my question about whether you used A-B pruning. > The answer is no. Instead of making it a rule, you've made it an > exception. > > I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or > programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained > useful knowledge in either. Correct, Chess is very vast. You cannot learn all techniques. else every one will be a grand master. I am just 1100 rated player. I just play Chess in my free time Occasionaly Just for fun. Even Beginner Level pushes my limits. So I do not understand how others are winning against the higher levels. I find only arround 10 / 1000 players at GetClub are able to win higher levels Other 990 Players are beaten by even the Beginner Level. A few of the Top players use other Commercial Program So Only 3 Players actually win with Brain Power. Players who win with Brains and not taking other help are. 1. Help Bot. 2. Bonsai. 3. Chrisf. Rest all are even weaker than the Beginner Level. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 02 Jul 2008 23:32:25 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Sanny <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote: >> Well, that answered my question about whether you used A-B pruning. >> The answer is no. Instead of making it a rule, you've made it an >> exception. >> >> I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or >> programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained >> useful knowledge in either. > >Correct, Chess is very vast. You cannot learn all techniques. else >every one will be a grand master. That's not the issue. You need some basic strategies however. > >I am just 1100 rated player. I just play Chess in my free time >Occasionaly Just for fun. Me and my brothers play on occasion. > >Even Beginner Level pushes my limits. So I do not understand how >others are winning against the higher levels. THAT's the issue. Many things seem to be pushing the limits. You've made the comment that the program is getting complicated. > >I find only arround 10 / 1000 players at GetClub are able to win >higher levels Other 990 Players are beaten by even the Beginner Level. > >A few of the Top players use other Commercial Program So Only 3 >Players actually win with Brain Power. Do you think you're attracting top-tier chess players with your program? > >Players who win with Brains and not taking other help are. > >1. Help Bot. >2. Bonsai. >3. Chrisf. > >Rest all are even weaker than the Beginner Level. > >Bye >Sanny > >Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html >   Date: 29 Jun 2008 23:30:57 From: Sanny Subject: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > =A0 Understood. =A0However, there is a titanic > difference between "good versus bad" moves > and evaluating what is or is not legal. > > =A0 If there are but *two* legal moves, both a > human player and achessengine might > crank away at them, evaluating deeply and > considering which is better. =A0But when there > is only one *legal* move, all the thinking and > whiling away of hours in the world cannot > ever change that fact. =A0To do so would Yes, now I understand what you mean. You were not talking abt weak moves but legal moves. So this have been corrected now. If there is "only 1 legal move" it will play that move in just 1 second instead of thinking for 3-5 min. That will save a lot of players time when there is only one legal move and he is playing with Master / Advance Level. In a game such moves occur only 1/2/3 times. But that will save GetClubs time in every game. Play a few game and let me know, When there is (only one legal move ) if its plays legal moves in 1 second or not. The programmer has corrected it. But not yet tested it. That you have to find by playing a few games. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html And by seeing recorded games we can see if it is playing such moves instantaniously or not. That was a very good advice. Now in every game 1-2 min will be saved. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 04 Jul 2008 22:15:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 4, 1:41 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > Good, you can look up acronyms. This lack of perceptiveness is telling. Dr. Sir Phillip IMnes would and indeed has pretended to know funky stuff, to try and impress the weak-minded. But I have no /need/ to do that sort of thing; my record in the Big One we fought in Grenada gives me -- and the entire flight crew of my sub -- all the accolades I could ever desire! Seriously fella, if you are impressed by an introductory class such as this one I took in college a quarter-century ago, perhaps you just need to get out more. Don't sweat it, kid-- it may be obsolete knowledge. Here's a bone, Fido: I don't know HTML (gasp!). > And I'll reiterate, UNIX used hash tables. So did the 1ESS. Who sold them? Was Bill Gates the only prospective customer? What about the rest of us-- the peons? (Zorro will school you, if you refuse to respect us peons.) > >> Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the > >> promotion. > > That's why you'll never become world champ. > >You remind me of my old pal, Mr. Bogolyubov... . > Never aspired to be world champ. That's what they all say, /after/ they realize how pointless it would be to try. Unlike you, I readily admit that I mulled it over a time or two; but after I got scholars-mated a couple of times by nerdy-looking kids who screamed "CHECK!" so the whole world knew I got crushed, I reconsidered. (Besides, how was I supposed to get past Bobby Fischer, who was expected to come back out of retirement at any moment?) > Again, do you have a point, other than contradiction? Anything > constructive to add perhaps? Yes. I would like to add that you have failed to respond to your horrific blunder just below: > >> A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use > >> some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the > >> best-looking lines first. The Guest revealed that you were just lost in space here-- what do you have to say for your arrogant, snotty, wrong self? > >> >> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess > >> >> program can be made without sorting. > > That was /your idea/, not mine. > No, your idea. Your idea because you said it's possible to write a > program without using existing strategies. Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a /pattern/ here? > > Anyway, your suggestion to speed up the search > >was a good one, except that it is even more crucial > >for him to fix the problem with quiessence-search > >first. > WTF is quiessence? It is the way we misspell the fancy word for "quiet position" where I come from (as I already indicated). Are you always this slow? > Do you mean quiescence? You tell me, Mr. Know-it-all No-help. > I still contend fix the strategy Shift duly noted. Your original position was that Sanny needed to increase *speed*. > If you have a barge cobbled together with > garbage, it ain't going to be graceful, no matter how much chrome you > put on it. Agreed. I think the results indicate that no matter how fast or slow, the tactics are being seriously mishandled, and my guess is that his programmers don't know about the importance of "quiet positions" and their relationship to calculating tactics in chess. I have consistently pounded the table, screaming at the top of my lungs that I can not and will not be beaten by a player/program which simply hangs its pieces to me! (Well, not often, anyway.) I reject the idea -- regardless of source -- that merely speeding things up will solve this problem, because even at the lower levels it should not exist-- yet it does. To simplify, calculating tactics correctly is more important than strategy, and this ought to be priority number one (apart from playing chess /in accordance with the rules/). Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like say, a link to a Web site which explains precisely how it is done. Or are you just going to continue your jabbering? I have (repeatedly) admitted not knowing enough about this to explain how it is done. You obviously also know very little (but you might know someone, who knows someone, who knows how it is done). ; >D -- help bot       Date: 05 Jul 2008 18:22:27 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:15:29 -0700 (PDT), help bot <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 4, 1:41 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Seriously fella, if you are impressed by an >introductory class such as this one I took in >college a quarter-century ago, perhaps you >just need to get out more. Don't sweat it, >kid-- it may be obsolete knowledge. Here's >a bone, Fido: I don't know HTML (gasp!). > I'm a systems programmer, and don't know HTML either. There's programs to do tha anyway. > >> And I'll reiterate, UNIX used hash tables. So did the 1ESS. > > Who sold them? Was Bill Gates the only >prospective customer? What about the rest >of us-- the peons? (Zorro will school you, if >you refuse to respect us peons.) > Little company around in the 80's called Bell Telephone. Maybe heard of them. > >> >> Any piece can have a minimum of zero moves. Oh, and I forgot the >> >> promotion. > >> > That's why you'll never become world champ. >> >You remind me of my old pal, Mr. Bogolyubov... . > >> Never aspired to be world champ. > > That's what they all say, /after/ they realize >how pointless it would be to try. Unlike you, >I readily admit that I mulled it over a time or >two; but after I got scholars-mated a couple >of times by nerdy-looking kids who screamed >"CHECK!" so the whole world knew I got >crushed, I reconsidered. (Besides, how was >I supposed to get past Bobby Fischer, who >was expected to come back out of retirement >at any moment?) Getting regular board beat-downs from my brothers made me find other avenues. Funny, I taught my cousin to play chess. I was 9, he was 10. He was beating me 5 minutes later. I think I'm not good stategically. > > >> Again, do you have a point, other than contradiction? Anything >> constructive to add perhaps? > > Yes. I would like to add that you have failed >to respond to your horrific blunder just below: > > >> >> A-B is selective search. Even the massively parallel solutions use >> >> some form of selective search, if for nothing else, to explore the >> >> best-looking lines first. > > The Guest revealed that you were just lost >in space here-- what do you have to say for >your arrogant, snotty, wrong self? I shorted searching for moves to search. Mea cupla already. > > >> >> >> In other words, it's sorting. If you want to tell me a decent chess >> >> >> program can be made without sorting. > >> > That was /your idea/, not mine. > >> No, your idea. Your idea because you said it's possible to write a >> program without using existing strategies. > > Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a >/pattern/ here? You didn't say: With the amazing speed of todays computers, perhaps a decent chess program can be made without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other chess-centric programming techniques. I countered they're not chess-centric techniques (A-B pruning is game theory 101, and hashing is data structure 101). Hash tables are so chess centric, they've been in just about everything that's come down the programming pike in the last 15-20 years. > > >> > Anyway, your suggestion to speed up the search >> >was a good one, except that it is even more crucial >> >for him to fix the problem with quiessence-search >> >first. > >> WTF is quiessence? > > It is the way we misspell the fancy word for "quiet >position" where I come from (as I already indicated). >Are you always this slow? > > >> Do you mean quiescence? > > You tell me, Mr. Know-it-all No-help. > > >> I still contend fix the strategy > > Shift duly noted. Your original position was >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*. No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint. > > >> If you have a barge cobbled together with >> garbage, it ain't going to be graceful, no matter how much chrome you >> put on it. > > Agreed. I think the results indicate that >no matter how fast or slow, the tactics are >being seriously mishandled, and my guess >is that his programmers don't know about >the importance of "quiet positions" and >their relationship to calculating tactics in >chess. I have consistently pounded the >table, screaming at the top of my lungs >that I can not and will not be beaten by a >player/program which simply hangs its >pieces to me! (Well, not often, anyway.) I pretty much agree, but as a programmer. My contention is he needs to go to the root of the problem. Scoring is that. You can score the pieces you have, and the squares you control. He needs to start there. Not hard. Once you know where you are, then you can look ahead. If you spend most of your allotted time seeing how you can recover after you hang your queen out to dry, it's not hard to figure out your program would suck. > > I reject the idea -- regardless of source -- >that merely speeding things up will solve >this problem, because even at the lower >levels it should not exist-- yet it does. A-B pruning gives you time. That doesn't necessarily mean faster. That means more time to do more productive things. From what I've seen, and what people have said, including yourself, it craps the bed every so often. It will play ok for a couple of moves, and then do a really hideous one. What I'm trying to point out is it appears that it gets a bunch of bad lines, and starts exploring them. If there's enough of them, you're only going to come up with bad moves. Better in that case to go wide, look at more moves until you find one that is more promising instead of looking at the first one, and going a ply or two in. I didn't think I was being that vague. > > To simplify, calculating tactics correctly >is more important than strategy, and this >ought to be priority number one (apart from >playing chess /in accordance with the >rules/). Agreed. To simplify it more, he needs to identify the best move and make it. Opening books are for strategy. Endgame bases are strategy. > > Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like >say, a link to a Web site which explains >precisely how it is done. Or are you just >going to continue your jabbering? If he's expecting to make money off of this, he can do his own research. It's bad enough he can't do any testing on his own so it seems. That's where I draw the line. He or his programmer(s) need to read a few books. Systems Programming by Silberschlatz, and any of the game programming books out there will give you info. > > I have (repeatedly) admitted not knowing >enough about this to explain how it is done. >You obviously also know very little (but you >might know someone, who knows someone, >who knows how it is done). ;>D Never said I know how to write a chess program, but I know something about game theory. I've worked in programming for a while now, and have done a bit, mostly in the area of safety. I do telecommunications now. And that is why I'm saying what I am. Even if you have a hat that says "Lion Tamer" on it, and want to be a lion tamer, it's no predictor of future performance as much as being a librarian. Wanna write a chess program, you should either know chess or programming. > > > -- help bot     Date: 01 Jul 2008 11:37:43 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Sun, 29 2008 23:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Sanny <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote: >>   Understood.  However, there is a titanic >> difference between "good versus bad" moves >> and evaluating what is or is not legal. >> >>   If there are but *two* legal moves, both a >> human player and achessengine might >> crank away at them, evaluating deeply and >> considering which is better.  But when there >> is only one *legal* move, all the thinking and >> whiling away of hours in the world cannot >> ever change that fact.  To do so would > >Yes, now I understand what you mean. You were not talking abt weak >moves but legal moves. > >So this have been corrected now. If there is "only 1 legal move" it >will play that move in just 1 second instead of thinking for 3-5 min. > >That will save a lot of players time when there is only one legal move >and he is playing with Master / Advance Level. > >In a game such moves occur only 1/2/3 times. But that will save >GetClubs time in every game. > >Play a few game and let me know, When there is (only one legal move ) >if its plays legal moves in 1 second or not. > >The programmer has corrected it. But not yet tested it. That you have >to find by playing a few games. > >Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > >And by seeing recorded games we can see if it is playing such moves >instantaniously or not. > >That was a very good advice. > >Now in every game 1-2 min will be saved. > >Bye >Sanny Well, that answered my question about whether you used A-B pruning. The answer is no. Instead of making it a rule, you've made it an exception. I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained useful knowledge in either. > >Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 01 Jul 2008 14:15:11 From: Frisco Del Rosario Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. In article <0ljk64dbgc9o4tp0tpimmb29tooa5utg46@4ax.com >, Patrick Volk <pjvolk@comcast.net > wrote: > I think the issue is you don't have a background in chess, or > programming. And depsite your efforts, I don't think you've gained > useful knowledge in either. That hit it right on the nose, but won't stop him, slow him down, or persuade him to learn anything. Sanny and Ray Gordon ought to collaborate on a project.         Date: 05 Jul 2008 22:05:33 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > > >> I still contend fix the strategy > > > > =A0Shift duly noted. =A0Your original position was > > >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*. > > > No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in > > speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint. > > =A0 Okay, more efficient is good. =A0But hisGetClub > program has some fundamental problem which > goes deeper than just slowness; it in fact > miscalculates tactics, or perhaps it doesn't > bother to try to calculate them-- as if that will > help. Have you played a game recently? Last 4 days the game wasagain improved with lots of new things. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Have a game and tell me how you face it. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html         Date: 05 Jul 2008 20:08:33 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 5, 6:22 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > Little company around in the 80's called Bell Telephone. Maybe heard > of them. I was talking about /who sold their chess machines/programs/ (i.e. the chess connection). > > The Guest revealed that you were just lost > >in space here-- what do you have to say for > >your arrogant, snotty, wrong self? > I shorted searching for moves to search. Whatever that means. (Lots of people here have trouble admitting they have no clue what they rant about). > > Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a > >/pattern/ here? > > You didn't say: > > With the amazing speed of todays computers, > perhaps a decent chess program can be made > without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other > chess-centric programming techniques. > > I countered they're not chess-centric techniques (A-B pruning is game > theory 101 You're splitting hairs; game theory/chess game theory are the same thing, to me (i.e. chess is a game). I could have put in a hyphen like this, to clarify my meaning: without fancy-pruners, or maybe italics, like so: without /fancy/ pruners, since I was not discussing the most elementary type, which merely cuts out the obvious chunks of fat. > and hashing is data structure 101). Hash tables are so > chess centric, they've been in just about everything that's come down > the programming pike in the last 15-20 years. They weren't used by the earliest chess programmers who actually sold their wares to the public. The "experts" used to write about how it was impractical to implement hash-tables, due to limitations of memory, etc. > >> I still contend fix the strategy > > > Shift duly noted. Your original position was > >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*. > > No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in > speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint. Okay, more efficient is good. But his GetClub program has some fundamental problem which goes deeper than just slowness; it in fact miscalculates tactics, or perhaps it doesn't bother to try to calculate them-- as if that will help. > I pretty much agree, but as a programmer. There are worse things; lawyers, politicians, slime, scum, fungi, lice-- but I keep repeating myself. > My contention is he needs to go to the root of the problem. Scoring is > that. You can score the pieces you have, and the squares you control. > He needs to start there. Not hard. There are in fact some scoring issues-- such as keeping its King near the corner in the endgame. But this is not a big issue if the program could only trounce humans at tactics, before the endgame. > Once you know where you are, then you can look ahead. If you spend > most of your allotted time seeing how you can recover after you hang > your queen out to dry, it's not hard to figure out your program would > suck. I myself have adopted a strategy in which I allocate my OTB thinking time toward the early part of the game, hoping to obtain a winning position instead of a losing one. Sanny's program does not compete in such events; he decides the thinking times, along with everything else (sometimes including who wins). But people would (once again) begin to complain, if he were to allocate a lot more time. > > I reject the idea -- regardless of source -- > >that merely speeding things up will solve > >this problem, because even at the lower > >levels it should not exist-- yet it does. > A-B pruning gives you time. That doesn't necessarily mean faster. That > means more time to do more productive things. True. But he still has to write the code so that the program /will/ do those things. > From what I've seen, and what people have said, including yourself, it > craps the bed every so often. It will play ok for a couple of moves, > and then do a really hideous one. > What I'm trying to point out is it appears that it gets a bunch of > bad lines, and starts exploring them. If there's enough of them, > you're only going to come up with bad moves. Better in that case to go > wide, look at more moves until you find one that is more promising > instead of looking at the first one, and going a ply or two in. I > didn't think I was being that vague. It seems to me that you must never have played the program; how else could you believe that widening the search will have any great impact? You do not seem to understand just how messed up are the program's calculation of /basic tactics/. > > To simplify, calculating tactics correctly > >is more important than strategy, and this > >ought to be priority number one (apart from > >playing chess /in accordance with the > >rules/). > > Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like > >say, a link to a Web site which explains > >precisely how it is done. Or are you just > >going to continue your jabbering? > If he's expecting to make money off of this, he can do his own > research. It's bad enough he can't do any testing on his own so it > seems. That's where I draw the line. He or his programmer(s) need to > read a few books. Systems Programming by Silberschlatz, and any of the > game programming books out there will give you info. I suppose that "answers" my question above. I think Sanny is hiring professional programmers to write the code; if so, your suggestion-- for them to read books -- is not going to be well received, nor will it likely help. > I've worked in programming for a while now, and have done a bit, > mostly in the area of safety. I do telecommunications now. > And that is why I'm saying what I am. Even if you have a hat that > says "Lion Tamer" on it, and want to be a lion tamer, it's no > predictor of future performance as much as being a librarian. Wanna > write a chess program, you should either know chess or programming. A look at Sanny's Web site reveals that his programmers know how to write code. But where they fall down is in knowing chess, and in all those subtle areas of programming which relate specifically to speed and efficiency, which can yield very strong chess moves; such speed and efficiency as is not normally required for many business programs, on modern hardware. These things are what many chess programmers obsess over, because they have a /need/ for speed. -- help bot           Date: 06 Jul 2008 23:29:35 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT), help bot <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 5, 6:22 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Little company around in the 80's called Bell Telephone. Maybe heard >> of them. > > I was talking about /who sold their chess >machines/programs/ (i.e. the chess connection). > I'm splitting hairs? Bell might have used some of the lessons learned from chess to go into the switching fabric. If they did that, they profited from it. > >> > The Guest revealed that you were just lost >> >in space here-- what do you have to say for >> >your arrogant, snotty, wrong self? > >> I shorted searching for moves to search. > > Whatever that means. (Lots of people >here have trouble admitting they have no >clue what they rant about). Indeed. > > >> > Wrong, again. Do I begin to detect a >> >/pattern/ here? >> >> You didn't say: >> >> With the amazing speed of todays computers, >> perhaps a decent chess program can be made >> without fancy pruners, hashing tables or other >> chess-centric programming techniques. >> >> I countered they're not chess-centric techniques (A-B pruning is game >> theory 101 > > You're splitting hairs; game theory/chess >game theory are the same thing, to me (i.e. >chess is a game). Game theory can be used in the routing of trains, or how to place your whiskey casks in a warehouse to move them the least (and store the most). > > I could have put in a hyphen like this, to >clarify my meaning: without fancy-pruners, >or maybe italics, like so: without /fancy/ >pruners, since I was not discussing the >most elementary type, which merely cuts >out the obvious chunks of fat. I'm bad for arguing sematics however ;) > > >> and hashing is data structure 101). Hash tables are so >> chess centric, they've been in just about everything that's come down >> the programming pike in the last 15-20 years. > > They weren't used by the earliest chess >programmers who actually sold their wares >to the public. The "experts" used to write >about how it was impractical to implement >hash-tables, due to limitations of memory, >etc. > > >> >> I still contend fix the strategy >> >> > Shift duly noted. Your original position was >> >that Sanny needed to increase *speed*. >> >> No... I said he needs to be more efficient, and it will result in >> speed. Probably a smaller memory footprint. > > Okay, more efficient is good. But his GetClub >program has some fundamental problem which >goes deeper than just slowness; it in fact >miscalculates tactics, or perhaps it doesn't >bother to try to calculate them-- as if that will >help. > > >> I pretty much agree, but as a programmer. > > There are worse things; lawyers, politicians, >slime, scum, fungi, lice-- but I keep repeating >myself. Hey, at least I have a job, unlike a few chess players... > > >> My contention is he needs to go to the root of the problem. Scoring is >> that. You can score the pieces you have, and the squares you control. >> He needs to start there. Not hard. > > There are in fact some scoring issues-- such >as keeping its King near the corner in the >endgame. But this is not a big issue if the >program could only trounce humans at tactics, >before the endgame. If you're writing a chess program, and you give bonus points for the position if the king is not in a corner. > > >> Once you know where you are, then you can look ahead. If you spend >> most of your allotted time seeing how you can recover after you hang >> your queen out to dry, it's not hard to figure out your program would >> suck. > > I myself have adopted a strategy in which >I allocate my OTB thinking time toward the >early part of the game, hoping to obtain a >winning position instead of a losing one. >Sanny's program does not compete in such >events; he decides the thinking times, along >with everything else (sometimes including >who wins). But people would (once again) >begin to complain, if he were to allocate a >lot more time. Exactly why you need to be efficient. But if you're expecting a minute a move, and the program decides it needs to take 5, what do you expect the person to do? > > >> > I reject the idea -- regardless of source -- >> >that merely speeding things up will solve >> >this problem, because even at the lower >> >levels it should not exist-- yet it does. > >> A-B pruning gives you time. That doesn't necessarily mean faster. That >> means more time to do more productive things. > > True. But he still has to write the code >so that the program /will/ do those things. Do you think he does analysis? He got Rybka, but all he does is have it play GC every few days, and posts the result here. He doesn't analyze the games it plays. He /doesn't even know what's a legal move/. > > >> From what I've seen, and what people have said, including yourself, it >> craps the bed every so often. It will play ok for a couple of moves, >> and then do a really hideous one. >> What I'm trying to point out is it appears that it gets a bunch of >> bad lines, and starts exploring them. If there's enough of them, >> you're only going to come up with bad moves. Better in that case to go >> wide, look at more moves until you find one that is more promising >> instead of looking at the first one, and going a ply or two in. I >> didn't think I was being that vague. > > It seems to me that you must never have >played the program; how else could you >believe that widening the search will have >any great impact? You do not seem to >understand just how messed up are the >program's calculation of /basic tactics/. You're talking about a chess program in the manner of chess, and I'm trying to put a programming spin on it. Basically a chess program: 1) Determines its' current position 2) Looks at the possible moves (and counter-moves, several moves ahead if possible) 3) And chooses the best move Tactics is (3). (2) and (3) need to happen concurrently. I've played it twice, and have better things to do than beta test. I'll play people on Pogo... better time controls. > > >> > To simplify, calculating tactics correctly >> >is more important than strategy, and this >> >ought to be priority number one (apart from >> >playing chess /in accordance with the >> >rules/). > > >> > Got anything to help Sanny on this? Like >> >say, a link to a Web site which explains >> >precisely how it is done. Or are you just >> >going to continue your jabbering? > >> If he's expecting to make money off of this, he can do his own >> research. It's bad enough he can't do any testing on his own so it >> seems. That's where I draw the line. He or his programmer(s) need to >> read a few books. Systems Programming by Silberschlatz, and any of the >> game programming books out there will give you info. > > I suppose that "answers" my question above. >I think Sanny is hiring professional programmers >to write the code; if so, your suggestion-- for >them to read books -- is not going to be well >received, nor will it likely help. Do I care, really? They can get offended by my comment, or they can do something about it. I'd prefer if they did the latter. I don't think it's the work of professional programmers. When I work in a particular field, it's in my best interest to figure out what they do, and what the rules are. I don't mind reading to get the job done... Otherwise I'd be harping about how I took FORTRAN IV in college, like some people. > > >> I've worked in programming for a while now, and have done a bit, >> mostly in the area of safety. I do telecommunications now. >> And that is why I'm saying what I am. Even if you have a hat that >> says "Lion Tamer" on it, and want to be a lion tamer, it's no >> predictor of future performance as much as being a librarian. Wanna >> write a chess program, you should either know chess or programming. > > A look at Sanny's Web site reveals that his >programmers know how to write code. Not good code. > But >where they fall down is in knowing chess, and >in all those subtle areas of programming >which relate specifically to speed and >efficiency, which can yield very strong chess >moves; such speed and efficiency as is not >normally required for many business >programs, on modern hardware. Efficiency is MUCH more imporant than speed. Neither really is important in business. If you're doing pure analysis, then you're probably going to want speed. >These things >are what many chess programmers obsess >over, because they have a /need/ for speed. Are you a chess programmer? I can tell you even if you have the fastest machine in the world, a crappy program will still bring it to its' knees. More importantly is what you do with it. I bet the Fidelity box would trounce GC. > > > -- help bot   Date: 29 Jun 2008 22:22:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: 4 new Openings taught. Sanny wrote: > > > If you find any opening move missing let me know it.GetClubcan > > > remember first four moves. So it plays opening moves in 0 seconds > > > saving your time. > > About that: when there is only one legal > > move the program goes into a deep think, > > as usual. But apart from figuring out that > > there is one and only one *legal* move, > > there's really nothing to think about, is > > there? Just play the move on the board, > > and crank away on the opponent's time. > GetClub thinks when there is 1 forced move So that may be by thinking > higher depth it may give a Gambit of Rook/ Queen to win the game? If such a follow-up exists, it will still be there after the (forced) only-legal-move is played and the opponent begins thinking. > Or may be some move may be found which draws the game by repetitive > moves. This could pose a technical problem. > As many times some good move may look wrong at lower depth but only > when depth of search is increased we can see it's benefits. After the move is executed on the board, the program ought to be able to "see" a bit deeper into the subsequent position. > I see in many games Zrbediah gives away its bishop/ Rook to win the > game So for that reasion all moves must be evaluated. Even if they are > giving loss at lower depth. Understood. However, there is a titanic difference between "good versus bad" moves and evaluating what is or is not legal. If there are but *two* legal moves, both a human player and a chess engine might crank away at them, evaluating deeply and considering which is better. But when there is only one *legal* move, all the thinking and whiling away of hours in the world cannot ever change that fact. To do so would require changing the rules of the game-- an act best reserved for execution in between matches or tourneys. A simple way to handle this is to churn out a list of all possible moves, then chop off the illegal ones, thus creating a list of only the *legal* moves. Now, before the next step (whatever it may be), you can look to see if the list of *legal* moves you just created has only one element, and if so, designate it as the "best" move (you can't be wrong about this) and play it on the board (or check to see if a draw condition exists, etc.). ------------------------------- Suppose you have made a million more of your famous "improvements", and are now ready for a $100,000 match against team Rybka. You could "pocket" the thinking time saved here and use it on the next move-- a move where you actually have a choice of legal moves. In most cases, the time controls are not such that moving immediately like this just throws away time you otherwise could have utilized constructively. In real tournaments and matches, the time limits allot a chunk of time, to be used as the program sees fit over the course of a set number of moves. Under such real-world conditions, your policy of utilizing the full time limit on a *forced* move would be a handicap. If I were the computer operator for GetClub -- entitled to fully half the purse if we won -- and this situation occurred (after say, Q-d8+), I would go ahead and play the only-legal- move (...Kxd8) immediately and then sit back and watch Rybka spit out her reply (Bg5 double-check). Then I would try asking for a delay or rescheduling of (...Ke8, forced) some sort, and if that did not work, I would be forced to use Plan B, in which I activate a powerful magnet to avoid having to face (Rd8++) reality. The magnet would destroy both computers, and every cellphone and then I would set off a hidden bomb, destroying all evidence that we had lost or even been stupid enough to play such a match. Anyway, it was just an idea. -- helpful bot     Date: 11 Jul 2008 18:40:19 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 10, 10:54 am, "Guest" <n...@example.none > wrote: > >> Also, I'm a little suspicious that the program speed is doubling every > >> month. That means in 5 months it's 32 times faster than before. This is > >> *not*, repeat *NOT*, the same as comparing the play to Rybka or anything > >> like that, but a real, genuine faster program (like if you moved to a > >> computer that was 32 times faster than it was 5 months ago.) > > Note that Sanny's program started out > > well below the 1000 USCF level, based on > > casual observation. So if he were to add > > a whopping 600 points due to repeated > > speed-ups, this is not so far-fetched as > > you might imagine. > I'm not so sure he's actually talking about doubling of his program's speed. > > He seems to be talking more about his program finding the claimed 'right' > rybka answer that is increasing. In reality, he has done *both*. > That's not quite the same thing. Which is why I made sure I stressed that. > > Those kind of improvements are the 'fuzzy' kind that require formal testing > methods to estimate ratings. You can't estimate based on the Tech curve. > > For his program to start below 1000 rating is pretty significant... How the > EXPLETIVE can you get a proram to play that poorly on today's hardware??! > Even a program that looks at only material and mobility should be stronger > than that. Precisely. That other guy -- the one who started claiming that all the "experts" agree with him, ala Nick Bourbaki -- can't seem to see the forest for the trees. My suggestion to Sanny was to stop his "improvement" nonsense-talk and try to home-in on a correct handling of tactics. The multitude of tied position scores can be broken by factors such as mobility-- which is an example of what made the now-ancient Fidelity tabletop computers so good (relatively speaking). Those old- timers got the basic tactics right-- and that included the Q-search, and not deliberately sacrificing pieces for only two pawns and a spite-check as Sanny's program often does. Personally, I think that it might also aid in reducing the number of alleged bugs he keeps inventing as scapegoats for the multitude of defeats the program suffers. Fewer defeats equal a reduced need for bogus excuses. And how do you get fewer defeats? By improving at tactics. -- help bot     Date: 11 Jul 2008 14:33:21 From: Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 9, 2:57=A0pm, "chipsc...@gmail.com" <chipsc...@gmail.com > wrote: > > MyChess did have two problems though.,,, (etc.) > > Very interesting info about this classic chess program. =A0However, > consider this: my compressed DOS binary is about 20k in size, and that > includes CGA graphics! =A0The program does a lot, considering its age > and its incredibly tiny footprint. =A0I have much admiration for what > the programmers of that era were able to do with relatively limited > computing resources. =A0In the end MyChess plays a decent enough game > for the most part, and even plays by the rules! =A0Sanny might learn > from this. For those who are not aware, Kittinger updated his engine for the "Majestic Chess" program that was released about five years ago. The engine played pretty well, although the complex interface and graphics requirements of the game (it was designed to be attractive and give competition to Chessmaster) meant that the engine itself could only use about 50-70% of the CPU. Not sure what will happen on dual-core systems now. jm     Date: 10 Jul 2008 17:30:44 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 10, 9:53 am, "chipsc...@gmail.com" <chipsc...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Now Rybka is only 8-10 times stronger than GetClub. You give 10 times > > more time to GetClub and it will play the move that Rybka will play. > > How can you make this assertion? Do you have any kind of evidence to > show that GitClub will *ever* find the same moves as Rybka? Evidence?!! Sanny is not a scientist; he is an artist. -- help bot     Date: 10 Jul 2008 17:28:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 10, 8:06 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > According to the description by Mr. Guest, > > it also did not do Q-search--- which is the > > very same problem we see with Sanny's > > program, which is causing the program to > > be even weaker at tactics than humans > > are. > > What is Q search? Precisely. ---- We seemed to have a small problem with the precise spelling of the term, so it was shortened to just "Q". It's a chess- programming technique by which tactical exchanges are "resolved", handing the result backward to the earlier nodes. Where there are no tactics, the score of a given position is just that; but where there are checks and/or captures, they are first "solved" and the result is then passed back. In this way, you would never score a position as "I'm ahead 0.1 because of my opponent's doubled pawns" when you are really hanging a Queen next move, to get out of check. Chess is 99% tactics, sort of. -- help bot     Date: 10 Jul 2008 08:04:18 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 10, 6:53=A0pm, "chipsc...@gmail.com" <chipsc...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Now Rybka is only 8-10 times stronger thanGetClub. You give 10 times > > more time toGetCluband it will play the move that Rybka will play. > > How can you make this assertion? =A0Do you have any kind of evidence to > show that GitClub will *ever* find the same moves as Rybka? I regularly play against Rybka and at the moment I find Rybka at 5 seconds plays as good as Easy Level at 50 seconds. So I feel GetClub is 10 times weaker than Rybka. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 10 Jul 2008 11:17:56 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:598b0544-3e53-4a05-8a46-21656a2d7991@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >I regularly play against Rybka and at the moment I find Rybka at 5 >seconds plays as good as Easy Level at 50 seconds. So I feel GetClub >is 10 times weaker than Rybka. It's been mentioned before by many people and you ignored it before, but I'll try again... Your reasoning is flawed. Rybka at 5 seconds per move is not going to play like it does at full time settings. For 5 seconds, it barely has time to do anything other than a quick tactical search. It doesn't have time to bring out its full strength. It's like comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle by seeing how fast you can back each out of the parking spot. It's not realistic. Also, Rybka will likely make much better use of its time than your program will. Meaning that for Rybka, going from 5 seconds a move to 50 seconds a move (10 times) will result in a much stronger game than if you gave your program 500 seconds a move. Going all the way to 3 minutes a move for Rybka will make it even stronger than if you increased your program's time by the comparable amount. The reason is that Rybka is likely to be much more efficient than yours. It just makes better use of the time. In the factor of 36 difference in time between a 5 second search and a normal 3 minute search, Rybka would probably increase its search depth by up to nearly 5 plies. (I have never played Rybka or looked at its source and I do not know its search details, but top programs tend to have a search depth growth rate of around 2.x. Meaning a factor of 2.x in time or speed means one extra ply of search. This is in significant contrast to the antique programs that had a growth of around 6.) And since you are comparing your program to rybka when it's playing a such a crippled time, your ratings can not be trusted. If you were to do comparisons with Rybka at the normal 3 minutes a move, then your results would be a bit more valid. And you could even use the Technology curve to try and come up with some believable ratings. Provided you *always* qualified the ratings with how you got them. But doing Rybka at 5 seconds per move is ridiculous. Getting ratings from such drastic time differences aren't realistic. And you need lots of games against multiple oponents to come up with even vaguely believable numbers. Also, by "10 times weaker", what do you mean... Wouldn't that suggest that if Rybka has a rating of 3000, then your program would be 300??? (nasty grin) (Alright, I know the math doesn't actually work quite like that, but I couldn't resist.) ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 10 Jul 2008 08:02:39 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > Indeed. =A0My contention was that MyChess plays "decent enough" > especially considering the small footprint and age. =A0It is certainly > not of championship caliber and will likely lose to better human > players. =A0I do want to match it against GitClub some time just for the > fun of seeing the resulting game. Waiting for your games. And lets see how that scores against getclub. If you know its rating, Then play with Beginner & Easy level and we will know exact rating of GetClub Chess. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 10 Jul 2008 06:53:44 From: chipschap@gmail.com Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > Now Rybka is only 8-10 times stronger than GetClub. You give 10 times > more time to GetClub and it will play the move that Rybka will play. How can you make this assertion? Do you have any kind of evidence to show that GitClub will *ever* find the same moves as Rybka?     Date: 10 Jul 2008 06:52:40 From: chipschap@gmail.com Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 10, 12:22=A0am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, "chipsc...@gmail.com" <chipsc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > MyChess did have two problems though.,,, (etc.) > > > Very interesting info about this classic chess program. =A0However, > > consider this: my compressed DOS binary is about 20k in size, and that > > includes CGA graphics! =A0The program does a lot, considering its age > > and its incredibly tiny footprint. =A0I have much admiration for what > > the programmers of that era were able to do with relatively limited > > computing resources. =A0In the end MyChess plays a decent enough game > > for the most part, and even plays by the rules! =A0Sanny might learn > > from this. > > =A0 Apparently, it did not originally play by the > rules, since you could not promote a pawn > to a piece unless one of that type had > already been captured. This is apparently fixed in the version I have of MyChess so I never saw this problem. Compare with GitClub where I still am not sure it plays by the rules. > =A0 According to the description by Mr. Guest, > it also did not do Q-search--- which is the > very same problem we see with Sanny's > program, which is causing the program to > be even weaker at tactics than humans > are. Indeed. My contention was that MyChess plays "decent enough" especially considering the small footprint and age. It is certainly not of championship caliber and will likely lose to better human players. I do want to match it against GitClub some time just for the fun of seeing the resulting game. If I understand correctly --- and I'm sure you can correct any misconceptions --- lack of quiescence search will cause problems due to a horizon effect. So that would make the program weaker at tactics than humans in some situations, but certainly not all, and perhaps not even most situations.       Date: 10 Jul 2008 09:56:02 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. <chipschap@gmail.com > wrote in message news:b85189fe-07c9-4e15-84b5-ee81619ae329@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >If I understand correctly --- and I'm sure you can correct any >misconceptions --- lack of quiescence search will cause problems due >to a horizon effect. So that would make the program weaker at tactics >than humans in some situations, but certainly not all, and perhaps not >even most situations. A static exchange evaluator will work out the regular attacks & exchanges, but it will missevaluate the more subtle aspects. Like pins, xray attacks, the exchanges weakening your position, and so on. Second order stuff beyond just the material exchanges themselves. Say you do an exchange involving your king pawn shield in a castled position. A static exchange wouldn't notice the weakening of your king's security. It would just evaluate the material balance change. That does add some error to the evaluation, but often a static exchange is 'good enough' because there will be other reasons for the search to reject that misevaluated position. The problems are 1) a static exchange evaluator can actually take as much time as a good q-search. 2) a static exchange does missevaluate the side effects of the exchanges. Things that a q-search will usually notice. In the early days of micro programs, people weren't quite as good at control the qsearch explosions, so a more predictable static exchange evaluator seemed a better choice. (Even in mainframe programs of the early 80s, there were sometimes qsearch explosions that could cause a 3 minute move to take more than an hour. Qsearches require some care to avoid that, and you need to enforce your time controls just in case.) ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 10 Jul 2008 05:06:44 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > =A0 According to the description by Mr. Guest, > it also did not do Q-search--- which is the > very same problem we see with Sanny's > program, which is causing the program to > be even weaker at tactics than humans > are. What is Q search? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 10 Jul 2008 09:57:00 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:8fe1f7d2-b45d-4eb7-a090-8326b44f38dd@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >What is Q search? It's often called a 'capture search'. Many people do call it a Quiescence search, but I often don't because I can rarely remember how to spell quiescence..... (Hence, Q-Search.) It's what you do when you reach a 'terminate search' node where you would evaluate it. But since the position isn't 'quiet' or 'calm' (meaning there are still attacks in progress) you need to extend the search a bit. Rather than just keep doing full plies with all the moves, you are more selective about what moves you include. Usually this is just captures, which is why it's so often called a "capture search." The full subject is significantly more complicated than what I just said. Things like search explosions, other choices besides captures, limiting the captures included, the move ordering in the Qsearch, and so on can all significantly improve the quality and speed of the Qsearch. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 10 Jul 2008 05:04:03 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > =A0 Judging from the program's current > behavior, it "sees" a forced mate coming > several plies earlier than it used to (if it > even saw anything at all). > Today again the game strength was increased. Now Easy Level will give you a tough game. I saw your game against Normal Level that you win by 2 Rooks & Queen threathening on the King. http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=3DDM22288&game=3DChess That was a quick Mate. on 31 moves. Now you can have much strong game even with Easy Level. As now Easy Level will play stronger than ever. Now, I feel you will not hear any improvement in GetClubs game as now all ideas of improvements have exhausted. Only if you can suggest some way of improvement further that can be done. Now Rybka is only 8-10 times stronger than GetClub. You give 10 times more time to GetClub and it will play the move that Rybka will play. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 09 Jul 2008 23:33:06 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 9, 2:12 pm, "Guest" <n...@example.none > wrote: > As a compromise, you could use a set of standardized positions to test > against. At the VERY LEAST, the 24 Bratko-Kopec test positions. The "Win > At Chess" test positions are also very popular. The "Albert Silver" > positions are also popular. > > (Note that the ratings estimate derived from the Bratko-Kopec positions are > known to be bogus. So don't even bother trying to estimate your strength > from them.) > > That way you can report how many correct solutions are found at a setting of > XYZ on a ABC system. Something reasonably identifying and repeatable. This could be useful in comparing the different levels at GetClub to one another, and to comparing performance in tactics over time. > Also, I'm a little suspicious that the program speed is doubling every > month. That means in 5 months it's 32 times faster than before. This is > *not*, repeat *NOT*, the same as comparing the play to Rybka or anything > like that, but a real, genuine faster program (like if you moved to a > computer that was 32 times faster than it was 5 months ago.) Note that Sanny's program started out well below the 1000 USCF level, based on casual observation. So if he were to add a whopping 600 points due to repeated speed-ups, this is not so far-fetched as you might imagine. Judging from the program's current behavior, it "sees" a forced mate coming several plies earlier than it used to (if it even saw anything at all). -- help bot       Date: 10 Jul 2008 09:54:42 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:214235e9-945c-4789-acc4-540f485ce746@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 9, 2:12 pm, "Guest" <n...@example.none> wrote: > >> As a compromise, you could use a set of standardized positions to test >> against. At the VERY LEAST, the 24 Bratko-Kopec test positions. The >> "Win >> At Chess" test positions are also very popular. The "Albert Silver" >> positions are also popular. >> >> (Note that the ratings estimate derived from the Bratko-Kopec positions >> are >> known to be bogus. So don't even bother trying to estimate your strength >> from them.) >> >> That way you can report how many correct solutions are found at a setting >> of >> XYZ on a ABC system. Something reasonably identifying and repeatable. > > This could be useful in comparing the > different levels at GetClub to one another, > and to comparing performance in tactics > over time. That is why I suggested it. I thought that if he wasn't willing to do full open testing, then he could at least take some of the commonly accepted standardized testing positions and report those results. I was hesitant to even mention the Bratko-Kopec test's attempt at producing an elo rating for a program. Trying to get a rating from just 24 positions isn't really feasible and it's well known the numbers it produces are wrong. But I figured that if he did look into the BK test, he'd see it anyway. > > >> Also, I'm a little suspicious that the program speed is doubling every >> month. That means in 5 months it's 32 times faster than before. This is >> *not*, repeat *NOT*, the same as comparing the play to Rybka or anything >> like that, but a real, genuine faster program (like if you moved to a >> computer that was 32 times faster than it was 5 months ago.) > > > Note that Sanny's program started out > well below the 1000 USCF level, based on > casual observation. So if he were to add > a whopping 600 points due to repeated > speed-ups, this is not so far-fetched as > you might imagine. I'm not so sure he's actually talking about doubling of his program's speed. He seems to be talking more about his program finding the claimed 'right' rybka answer that is increasing. That's not quite the same thing. Which is why I made sure I stressed that. Those kind of improvements are the 'fuzzy' kind that require formal testing methods to estimate ratings. You can't estimate based on the Tech curve. For his program to start below 1000 rating is pretty significant... How the EXPLETIVE can you get a proram to play that poorly on today's hardware??! Even a program that looks at only material and mobility should be stronger than that. > Judging from the program's current > behavior, it "sees" a forced mate coming > several plies earlier than it used to (if it > even saw anything at all). > > > -- help bot > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 09 Jul 2008 23:22:49 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, "chipsc...@gmail.com" <chipsc...@gmail.com > wrote: > > MyChess did have two problems though.,,, (etc.) > > Very interesting info about this classic chess program. However, > consider this: my compressed DOS binary is about 20k in size, and that > includes CGA graphics! The program does a lot, considering its age > and its incredibly tiny footprint. I have much admiration for what > the programmers of that era were able to do with relatively limited > computing resources. In the end MyChess plays a decent enough game > for the most part, and even plays by the rules! Sanny might learn > from this. Apparently, it did not originally play by the rules, since you could not promote a pawn to a piece unless one of that type had already been captured. According to the description by Mr. Guest, it also did not do Q-search--- which is the very same problem we see with Sanny's program, which is causing the program to be even weaker at tactics than humans are. -- help bot       Date: 10 Jul 2008 09:53:47 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:ae379fae-a953-4aef-b911-6572cf2e44a6@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, "chipsc...@gmail.com" <chipsc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Apparently, it did not originally play by the > rules, since you could not promote a pawn > to a piece unless one of that type had > already been captured. The first version was that way. Maybe the first cp/m shareware version too, I'm not sure. That was definetly fixed by later versions. (At what point I don't know. Just that it was definetly fixed.) It was just simply a quirk of how he programmed it. He knew that at the time but did it anyway. He had never written a chess program before, and probably had read little, so I don't consider it a big issue for a first version. Of course, if you are talking about FIDE rules, then it's safe to say few of the early micro programs played properly. That tended to be added after a few revisions. They often didn't do 50 move rule (even though it was simple) or draw by repetition because that required extra storage. They also rarely did time control properly. Of course, later versions of MyChess fixed that, just as the Spracklens did for Sargon. > According to the description by Mr. Guest, > it also did not do Q-search--- which is the MyChess used a static exchange evaluator. That's a far step above doing nothing. And there are various levels of sophistication for static exchange evaluators. I don't know how good MyChess' was. A static exchange evaluator will take care of the obvious exchanges, but they do have trouble with pins and xray attacks and so on. The second order effects. It's just not as good as a Q-search, but it's better than nothing. > very same problem we see with Sanny's > program, which is causing the program to > be even weaker at tactics than humans > are. That would depend on where the tactical errors are being made. People have mentioned shallow tactical errors and that would suggest it's neither a q-search or horizon problem. Still, I guess if he cut off the search in the middle of an exchange, that would certainly cause problems. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 09 Jul 2008 14:57:44 From: chipschap@gmail.com Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > > MyChess did have two problems though.,,, (etc.) Very interesting info about this classic chess program. However, consider this: my compressed DOS binary is about 20k in size, and that includes CGA graphics! The program does a lot, considering its age and its incredibly tiny footprint. I have much admiration for what the programmers of that era were able to do with relatively limited computing resources. In the end MyChess plays a decent enough game for the most part, and even plays by the rules! Sanny might learn from this.     Date: 09 Jul 2008 09:33:23 From: Sanny Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > It's the same situation as with testing... you need lots of games to be a= ble > to get a reasonable confidence in the actual strengths of the programs. > > Yes I know that is the way tournaments are done. =A0I'm not disagreeing. = =A0I'm > saying that you can't get good statistical results with that few games an= d > whatever winner you do get is more 'show' than fact. Thats true it is very difficult to find out correct strength of program. And GetClub is doubling in speed every month it is very difficult to estimate its strengths. Now, Even Easy Level gives good competition. Have you ever played at GetClub? Play a game with easy level and tell me how you find it. To swim you have to dive in river. To play you have to start a Chess competition. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html So Just start a game with Easy Level and see how good GetClub plays. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 09 Jul 2008 13:12:18 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. >"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:cbf99adb-9342-42a4-a886->7c93da213679@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> It's the same situation as with testing... you need lots of games to be >> able >> to get a reasonable confidence in the actual strengths of the programs. >> >> Yes I know that is the way tournaments are done. I'm not disagreeing. I'm >> saying that you can't get good statistical results with that few games >> and >> whatever winner you do get is more 'show' than fact. > >Thats true it is very difficult to find out correct strength of >program. And GetClub is doubling in speed every month it is very >difficult to estimate its strengths. Yes, it is difficult. That's why you need automated testing etc. And playing on the free intenet chess servers where you can get reliable test results. Until you do that, you and your program are a joke. Nobody will take it any more seriously than if you said you had a dog that could talk and sing saprano. You can get away without serious testing if you do chess programming as a hobby, with nobody else caring. But what you are doing (trying to be commerical and spouting ratings) requires serious testing. As a compromise, you could use a set of standardized positions to test against. At the VERY LEAST, the 24 Bratko-Kopec test positions. The "Win At Chess" test positions are also very popular. The "Albert Silver" positions are also popular. (Note that the ratings estimate derived from the Bratko-Kopec positions are known to be bogus. So don't even bother trying to estimate your strength from them.) That way you can report how many correct solutions are found at a setting of XYZ on a ABC system. Something reasonably identifying and repeatable. But test positions are no substitute for full testing. Just a convenint way to do some quickie tests. Also, I'm a little suspicious that the program speed is doubling every month. That means in 5 months it's 32 times faster than before. This is *not*, repeat *NOT*, the same as comparing the play to Rybka or anything like that, but a real, genuine faster program (like if you moved to a computer that was 32 times faster than it was 5 months ago.) Getting back to the doubling of performance every month... There is a thing called the "Technology curve" that's about how much ratings increase you get for a doubling in computer power. (Much the research talks about the strenght as compared to depth of search. But the data can be converted.) The is quite a bit of debate as to the actual shape of the curve. Most though agree that it's not a straight line and is indeed a curve. That its growth slows drastically on the faster systems (or deeper searches.) Part of the problem is that most of the results reported are based on self-play to different depths, rather than full scale games against a variety of opponents. In the old days, on slow hardware and when searches were usually 4-7 ply in the middle game, people usually said an extra ply of search was worth about 200 ratings points. However, most agree that is no longer true. The deeper you search (or the better your program is to begin with), the less effect the increased power will have on your ratings. For example, based on Szabo & Szabo's testing, a factor of 32 power can give you about 600 rating points if your program is really really bad to begin with. If your program already has a rating of 1500, then the same increase in power will give you about 400 points. If your program is already at 2000, then the same factor of 32 performance increase will give you maybe 250 points increase. And that's with doubling the computer speed 5 times (2^5=32). And again, this is *not* the kind of 'doubling of performance' that you would get by comparing your program's play to Rybka. This is REAL program speed doublings. But those are just rough estimates based on self play. Real results will vary quite a bit. The only way to know what the ratings change really is is to do serious testing with lots of games and a wide range of opponents. Again, if this was a hobby, you could get away with casual testing. Lots of people do that. But if you are trying to be serious, and be commerial, and spout ratings levels, then you need to be serious about your testing. >Now, Even Easy Level gives good competition. Have you ever played at >GetClub? Play a game with easy level and tell me how you find it. > >To swim you have to dive in river. >To play you have to start a Chess competition. > >Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > >So Just start a game with Easy Level and see how good GetClub plays. > >Bye >Sanny > >Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---       Date: 09 Jul 2008 13:25:24 From: Kerry Liles Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. Doubling in strength every month... lets see: after 6 months that would be 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 = zero "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:cbf99adb-9342-42a4-a886-7c93da213679@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... Thats true it is very difficult to find out correct strength of program. And GetClub is doubling in speed every month it is very difficult to estimate its strengths.     Date: 09 Jul 2008 06:46:46 From: chipschap@gmail.com Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. > MyChess was written by Dave Kittenger. =A0In 78 he was living in Alaska a= nd > was one of the top players in the entire state. =A0 MyChess was really not bad for its time (and you can still get a working copy for DOS emulation). It plays at least a reasonable game although it gets pretty slow when set to "higher" play levels. I really ought to match it against GitClub; that would be most interesting.       Date: 09 Jul 2008 10:59:40 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. ><chipschap@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:bafb31b9-caeb-4fa5-9e77->a3f18310229b@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> MyChess was written by Dave Kittenger. In 78 he was living in Alaska and >> was one of the top players in the entire state. > >MyChess was really not bad for its time (and you can still get a >working copy for DOS emulation). It plays at least a reasonable game >although it gets pretty slow when set to "higher" play levels. I >really ought to match it against GitClub; that would be most >interesting. MyChess was a pretty good first attempt. Far better than Spracklen's Sargon was. Too bad he never released the source. I tried contacting him once about it, but all I could find was a postal address and he didn't write back. MyChess was also faster than Sargon. About 10 times faster. It had a better evaluator and move ordering too. MyChess did have two problems though. First, it used a static exchange evaluator instead of a Qsearch. Although they were popular in the early micro days, they do have a number of tactical problems and can cause serious misevaluations. The second problem was that the way MyChess stored the board, you couldn't promote a Queen to a piece that hadn't been captured. Meaning if you still had both rooks, you couldn't promote to a rook. MyChess used a very odd board layout, where each of the 32 pieces had a fixed location in an array and the array held the piece square number. This is in contrast to other programs that have an array where each square hold the type of piece on that square. The promotion issue was fixed in later versions, of course. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 08 Jul 2008 17:31:42 From: help bot Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. On Jul 7, 9:19 pm, "Guest" <n...@example.none > wrote: > > I don't recall having much in the way of choice, > > until I got a PC, that is. They had a cartridge-- > > you could buy it, or not, your choice. :>D > > Oh, there were lots of chess programs in the early 80s. I remember getting > computer magazines around 80 (at the earliest) and onward, and there were > quite a few. > > I don't remember them all, but here are a few from that time period: > > MyChess, MicroChess, Sargon 1 & 2, Sfinks (of course), Micro-Chess (not > Peter Jennings), Video Chess, 8080 Chess. Chess 0.5 (Pascal source, not > much of a chess program.) I didn't have a PC quite that early. Maybe some of these were for the Radio Shack TRS/80, which I never had? > And those are just off the top of my memory from the period 78-81ish. And > there were dozens more competing in tournaments. The odds are good at least > a few of them were sold commercially too (like Sargon & MyChess & Sfinks > were.) The name Sargon is the frist to strike a bell. But I'm thinking of Sargon IV... it was so long ago. > My little unpopular micro (RadioShack Color Computer) had... ChessD, > MicroChess, Cyrus, VoxChess, Chess, and at least one more that I can't > remember the name of. And that was an unpopular system. My guess is it wasn't a good deal; that Radio Shack was stiffing its customers. Either that, or maybe it was just that Atari had much better games at the time. > Something popular like the C64 or Apple ][ would have at least double that. When the Commodore64 first came out, it undercut Atari by a huge margin, and added 16k to boot. However, the selection of software was terrible, because it was so new. > For at least the past 10 years, he didn't *have* a copy. Everything I mentioned happened long before this. > I scanned them in the printed copies and tried to OCR them, but without much > luck. (Have you ever tried to OCR Fortran??? Punched cards... we had punched cards back then, easily read by a machine. The program consisted of a stack of punched cards, all in their proper sequence. You transported the programs in your satchel, stored in the trunk of your Ford Falcon or Chevy Bel Aire. > >> He's right. It's not reasonable to port CrayBlitz to another system. > > > When a person is "right", he does not ever > > need to contradict himself the way BH did. > > > For instance, I noticed that in many of the > > old discussions he wanted/needed to have > > things both ways. If they were talking about > > his various chess programs, BH might write > > something to the effect that one was in > > essence the same as another, only on > > different hardware. But if someone else-- > > say, one of those who wanted to know how > > "smart" the program was vs. how "fast" was > > a Cray-- would ask an annoying question, > > Mr. Hyatt would simply contradict himself. > > This lent the impression that he was not > > merely wrong, but averting the truth. > Not quite sure what you are saying there. Self-contradiction is where a person says one thing, but then turns around and says the opposite, when it suits his whim. For instance, Dr. IMnes -- a famous nearly- an-IM -- will support the sinister Larry Parr in "trying and convicting" the president of FIDE of murdering a journalist based on purely circumstantial evidence, but then turn around on a whim and insist that this sort of thing is un-American, when applied to somebody else. > The program itself had some chess knowledge. Quite a bit. (I didn't > examine the algorithms that closely, so I can't say what.) > > Except for the parallel processing stuff, there probably wasn't much that > was truely unique or unusual. But what was there was very often very Cray > specific. Things were often chosen and coded to make the Cray happy. > > He did depend heavily on the Cray's raw performance to work as well as it > did. > > It was kind of like how Ken Thompson gave up on regular computers and built > Belle. Hyatt gave up on regular computers and used a Cray. There is a slight difference there, as few people I know of could afford a Cray. Let me see... Sam Walton... Bill Gates... Warren Buffet... the Prince of Saudi Arabia... Elvis. Michael Jackson, after his Thriller album maybe. > You can't easily seperate the Cray out of CrayBlitz. It's not called "Blitz > on Cray". > > It would take a massive rewrite to get the Cray out of it and make it > suitable for a regular computer. Not just a translation, but you'd have to > rewrite everything that depended on the Cray hardware. Indeed, this contradicts what Mr. Hyatt himself wrote, and I suspect that you are right and that he was attempting to carry forward, so to speak, his fame and glory from CrayHeaven-to-reality. > He did have a portable version, but it was basically just the regular > Fortran version doing things sequentially. It was still set up for vectors > and so on, it was just done sequentially on a regular computer. And as a > result, it ran very slowly. > > Figure a reduction by 10 for regular hardware. Probably not unreasonable. > That would cut about two plies off its search. If the chess-knowledge was really good, chopping off a bit of Cray-speed would not have all that much impact, except maybe in competitions against other top-notch contenders. > >> The reality is, the Cray architecture is highly unsuited to computer > >> chess. > >> Chess does not vectorize well, at all. That he managed to make it work > >> as > >> well as he did is a testiment to his & Nelson's programming skills. Yet it would seem to indicate poor judgment, if what you say just above is true. But all these apologies come off as rather unconvincing, given the fact that using the Cray, they managed to win the world computer championship; without the Cray... nothing. > Considering the cost of Cray time, he would have needed to sell his house to > pay for *one* tournament. Exactly. So why pretend having free access was not an advantage? Why deny the speed and power of the Cray? Why not look at the facts, like how /with/ the Cray, BH won, but without the Cray, he never has despite his long involvement. Game losses were blamed on "bad pairings" rather than "bad moves", etc. It all fits a certain pattern, reminiscent of a famous American world chess champion. > In the old days, it wasn't easy to do a chess program. Even today, it's not easy if you (i.e. Sanny) are unwilling to do some research. Chess has a lot of special moves, like /en passant/, castling and pawn promotion. All the pieces have their own ways of moving, and of course the King is not allowed to do things that the other pieces can do. Victor Kortchnoi once asked the arbiter if he could legally castle; how is Sanny to know such things, if a player two thousand rating points higher does not know them? : >D -- help bot       Date: 08 Jul 2008 22:44:13 From: Guest Subject: Re: When only 1 legal move, GetClub will not think more. "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:f25a827f-ba8a-46ca-bdf9-56114c3e7c72@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 7, 9:19 pm, "Guest" <n...@example.none> wrote: > >> MyChess, MicroChess, Sargon 1 & 2, Sfinks (of course), Micro-Chess (not >> Peter Jennings), Video Chess, 8080 Chess. Chess 0.5 (Pascal source, not >> much of a chess program.) > > I didn't have a PC quite that early. Maybe some > of these were for the Radio Shack TRS/80, which > I never had? MyChess was for z80 systems, and later x86 systems (cp/m & dos). MicroChess was for lots of processors. There were several versions of Microchess, with the later ones being much better. Sfinks would have been z80 in those days, with the PC version coming out in 83? (For the Z80 stuff, they were probably CP/M, so were fairly portable among computer brands.) Chess 0.5 was in Pascal and was published in 1978. It was a lousy chess program, but it served as a basis for many others. Just like Sargon 1 did. Sargon 1 was z80 and almost any OS. It was also ported to the 6502 and 6809 processors. Probably the x86 too but I can't remember for sure. 8080 chess was just for the Sol-20 with an 8080 processor. All the way back to 1977. But those were just off the top of my head. I'm sure there were others that I can't remember in the -1981 days. After 1981 or so, there were lots of chess programs. >> And those are just off the top of my memory from the period 78-81ish. >> And >> there were dozens more competing in tournaments. The odds are good at >> least >> a few of them were sold commercially too (like Sargon & MyChess & Sfinks >> were.) > > The name Sargon is the frist to strike a bell. > But I'm thinking of Sargon IV... it was so long ago. Sargon became famous when it was written in 3 months (before the Spracklens even owned a computer) and won the 1978 West Coast Computer Faire chess tournament. (The guy who organized that later wrote the Atari 2600 chess game.) MyChess was written by Dave Kittenger. In 78 he was living in Alaska and was one of the top players in the entire state. So he wrote his own chess program. It supposedly had a very 'human' style play. These programs later evolved and were put into the Novag chess computers, such as the Novag Savant. Later descendants were the Connie & Super Connie. > > >> My little unpopular micro (RadioShack Color Computer) had... ChessD, >> MicroChess, Cyrus, VoxChess, Chess, and at least one more that I can't >> remember the name of. And that was an unpopular system. >